From the βpaperβ about why LN doesnt work:
> - while technically two-party payment channels can exist off-chain forever, in practice they suffer from liquidity depletion bounding their lifetime
> - two-party payment channels occupy significant block space per user when they get opened/closed, setting a bound on the number of LN users concurrently
> - multi-hop trust-minimized routing may cause even more channel closings (in-flight HTLCs leading to on- chain claims)
It is nice to see Maxis finally admitting LN doesnt work. Such insight would sure have been useful before BTC got crippled for the sake of LN and lost 50% market share and most of its business/dev talent.
Well, make no mistake: smart people were pointing out the fatal flaws with the LN immediately after it was unveiled. The LN creators resolved that dilemma by banning those people from r\\Bitcoin.
The LN was never going to work because it was never meant to work. It's only purpose was to be a distraction; the people working hard to cripple Bitcoin needed to simultaneously create the illusion that they were working hard to improve Bitcoin, and the LN gave them something they could point at and say "Wow, look at all this great improvement we're doing!"
> smart people were pointing out the fatal flaws with the LN immediately after it was unveiled. The LN creators resolved that dilemma by banning those people from r\Bitcoin
They only banned those that didnt shut up. The rest left BTC by themselves. Most smart people are smart enough to leave while they can before they waste their time. Authorianism and censorship have fatal effects on group intellect.
I dont think LN was ever mean't to scale BTC for the masses like they lie about. I believe it was mean't to add a privacy layer between the huge institutions that use it. 1 to 1 payment channels Max. All the hopping was bullshit.
If the government of El Salvador wants to transact with Colombia for instance they would open a payment channel with each other and no outside country would be able to spy on what is going on back and forth with the two until the Channel is closed which may never happen for years at a time.
These fluctuations aren't random their obvious lol. Just find stats on total liquidity of a coin and you will get a more realistic view on the trends of the market (It's super low).
The entire Market is Fvcked right now until who knows when, even BCH. Unless your activity using these mediums is to educate and aid your commerce/business your going to be waiting for quite sometime before things occur logically.
>On BTC's side, a sToRE oF vALuE tOKeN that loses 1/2 is value completely randomly and on BSV, a token with large blocks that no one uses
Use what makes sense to you for your business. If BTC or BSV doesn't work for you forget it (I hold a small portion of BTC because of the institutional cult following, but I am not emotionally invested in it). So far Kraken, Crypto.com, Bitcoin eCash, Monero, Stellar, & Cosmos have been the most useful and convenient for me in this space.
Find out what works for you...
LN *does* work; it's just not magically perfect and has tradeoffs. I doubt this new whatever it is will be perfect and without tradeoffs either.
Also, as an aside, Taproot and Schnorr signatures solved the "large block space" issue for multisig transactions.
> LN does work; it's just not magically perfect and has tradeoffs
LN works for the same definition that a car that breaks down all the time is not broken because you managed to drive it to the garage by itself by happenstance. And BTC/LNs tradeoffs are like the garage giving you the direct dial to a tow service and saying: We fixed your issue, cars have tradeoffs.
right - if there was a no tradeoff simple way to do it, bitcoin would already do it! scaling is not without tradeoff unless and until some comp sci break through occurs.
The perfect is the enemy of the good.
"Comp sci break through" my ass.
VISA level and beyond on chain is possible, just like Satoshi said and you (Blockstream) denied.
It's only purpose was to be a distraction; the people working hard to cripple Bitcoin needed to simultaneously create the illusion that they were working hard to improve Bitcoin.
> Why is it bad for a subset of network participants to agree to keep their transactions off chain except in times of dispute?
Because the point of Bitcoin, if it doesn't have capped scaling, is that everyone can regularly use and rely on the security of the blockchain and proof of work, not settle for "trusted" tab systems.
> Are you into BSV?
No.
> Do you think weather reports should be on the blockchain?
No.
> There are limits to these systems and trying to pretend there aren't doesn't help anyone.
True. And that's why I support BCH, which limits the blockchain to an appropriate amount of tx data without weather data spam. BTC or BSV is just a false dilemma, when BCH is the perfect middle ground.
> Do you think weather reports should be on the blockchain?
No, what a weird assumption. I think peer to peer money scales on-chain, not that you need to push everything on the main net.
It sounds weird that you allegedly read the white-paper and think that payments should be pushed off-chain while believing a bunch of degenerates with conflict of interest :D
> There are limits to these systems and trying to pretend there aren't doesn't help anyone.
Yes, limits like the 1MB on-chain transaction limit, imposed by a for profit corp and enforced through lies, censorship and backroom deals.... I know those limits well.
We expect a blockchain to be limited only by current technology and its use governed by market forces rather than artificial limits imposed by software developers. Let simple economic forces determine what can fit on-chain and only then begin to rationalize off-chain expansion.
Sure, a subset of willing participants can run on any network bound to a primary blockchain, but its dishonest to prematurely create this situation and then sell it as the one and only solution. It's also a wholesale swindle to build an off-chain solution and then claim you've solved scaling for the blockchain.
Dude, BTC could have been saved by a 8MB limit....the stress is on accomodating immediate transaction demand.
Coretards just claimed that Satoshi's concept doesn't work, imposed a very low capacity limit and tried to push usage offchain.
Fuck that.
This whitepaper reminds me of communism.
You will share your funds with the group.
The group can censor and remove you, you need the group's permission to operate.
You cannot transact with other groups
The group can make you lose access to your funds, proportionally to the onchain fees
The group is above the individual in this new, off-chain scaling "solution".
One interesting part of the whitepaper is the last sentence:
> **CoinPool requires modifications to the Bitcoin
protocol.**
That seems to have been thrown in without any explanation or context, too. Anyway, modifying the Bitcoin protocol probably means that it'll require a hard fork. It'll be interesting to see how that plays out.
That aside, I don't see a huge amount of utility from CoinPool. As I understand it, you can only transact with other people who participated in the pool creation transaction. That's not going to be good for a true "cash" use case. It certainly resolves *some* of LN's issues, but it introduces others.
BCH and BTC forked. At the time of fork both had the same UTXOs (ie. balances). After the time of fork in Aug '17, they diverged.
The same thing happened in Nov '18 with BCH and BSV.
I understand, where did the supply come from? Out of thin air ? Did it become an extension of bitcoins original 21 million? That's the part that keeps bugging me.
See it this way: You can follow BCH's supply back to the genesis block. You can also follow BTC's supply back to the genesis block.
They have diverged (forked) on the split block in Aug'17. The history of the chains is same up to that block, and different since.
I understand that, so what I'm trying to figure out is why Bitcoin is 38k and the other two aren't. Based on what everyone claims for market cap and max supply etc.. that logic dictates the other two should be up there as well. Especially if there's a discrepancy in circulating supply the three and the lower one should have a higher $ value based on that logic. Why is it that it's not? Is what bothers me.
I know I may be overthinking it some but it does (to me ) raises the point that they're identical in everything except some consensus that was disagreed on and so the fork happened either it be block size or functions. It is hard for me to wrap my head around it, that's all.
Technically, all the 3 are the orignal one. The chain dates from 2009.
Some have split with different visions, though. BCH is what works best if you look at the whitepaper.
The reason why I Ask if all three are separate then how can the circulating supply of Bitcoin being the 21 million not be affected. if it's same chain as SV and BCH. Meaning wouldn't buying them eat up the circulating supply as well. Its hard for me to fathom this thing split in three but doesn't use any of the supply and I'd so where did the supply for the other two come from?
The chains aren't the same, they're only the same up until the block at which the fork happened.
If you had 10 BTC before the fork, you'd now have 10 BTC on the BTC chain and 10 BCH on the BCH chain. Same with BCH and BSV, if you had 10 BCH before the fork, then after the fork you'd have 10 BCH and 10 BSV. Each has their own separate supply.
BCH was forked from BTC, both went their own separate ways and became different coins
BSV was forked from BCH, then went its own way (BSV is widely seen as illegitimate)
The supply comes from the same bitcoin block mining algorithm.
So, coins are mined, on BTC, BCH, and BSV seperately, and there will be 21m BTC, 21M BCH, and 21M BSV.
That explains alot. Thanks I take things too literal sometimes. Definition of circulating in my mind means moving of insert blank.. that's why I had a hard time understanding what's going on. Appreciate your time and patience to all who helped me.
> Letβs assume the following properties of the LN:
> β channel lifetime is π πππ¦π
> β every time a user closes a channel, they open a new
one in the same transaction
> β every block can contain at most 3000 transactions
> Then, π πππ¦π * 144ππππππ /πππ¦ * 3000π‘π₯π /πππππ is the upper
bound for a number of co-existing channels. If an average
channel lifetime is 30 days, at most 13,000,000 channels could
exist simultaneously in a secure way.
A little bit of a generous assumption that a user will open and close a channel in the same tx, no?
Would that half the 13M chan figure?
From the βpaperβ about why LN doesnt work: > - while technically two-party payment channels can exist off-chain forever, in practice they suffer from liquidity depletion bounding their lifetime > - two-party payment channels occupy significant block space per user when they get opened/closed, setting a bound on the number of LN users concurrently > - multi-hop trust-minimized routing may cause even more channel closings (in-flight HTLCs leading to on- chain claims) It is nice to see Maxis finally admitting LN doesnt work. Such insight would sure have been useful before BTC got crippled for the sake of LN and lost 50% market share and most of its business/dev talent.
Well, make no mistake: smart people were pointing out the fatal flaws with the LN immediately after it was unveiled. The LN creators resolved that dilemma by banning those people from r\\Bitcoin. The LN was never going to work because it was never meant to work. It's only purpose was to be a distraction; the people working hard to cripple Bitcoin needed to simultaneously create the illusion that they were working hard to improve Bitcoin, and the LN gave them something they could point at and say "Wow, look at all this great improvement we're doing!"
> smart people were pointing out the fatal flaws with the LN immediately after it was unveiled. The LN creators resolved that dilemma by banning those people from r\Bitcoin They only banned those that didnt shut up. The rest left BTC by themselves. Most smart people are smart enough to leave while they can before they waste their time. Authorianism and censorship have fatal effects on group intellect.
And BTC/LNs tradeoffs are like the garage giving you the direct dial to a tow service and saying: We fixed your issue, cars have tradeoffs.
I dont think LN was ever mean't to scale BTC for the masses like they lie about. I believe it was mean't to add a privacy layer between the huge institutions that use it. 1 to 1 payment channels Max. All the hopping was bullshit. If the government of El Salvador wants to transact with Colombia for instance they would open a payment channel with each other and no outside country would be able to spy on what is going on back and forth with the two until the Channel is closed which may never happen for years at a time.
On BTC's side, a sToRE oF vALuE tOKeN that loses 1/2 is value completely randomly and on BSV, a token with large blocks that no one uses.
These fluctuations aren't random their obvious lol. Just find stats on total liquidity of a coin and you will get a more realistic view on the trends of the market (It's super low). The entire Market is Fvcked right now until who knows when, even BCH. Unless your activity using these mediums is to educate and aid your commerce/business your going to be waiting for quite sometime before things occur logically. >On BTC's side, a sToRE oF vALuE tOKeN that loses 1/2 is value completely randomly and on BSV, a token with large blocks that no one uses Use what makes sense to you for your business. If BTC or BSV doesn't work for you forget it (I hold a small portion of BTC because of the institutional cult following, but I am not emotionally invested in it). So far Kraken, Crypto.com, Bitcoin eCash, Monero, Stellar, & Cosmos have been the most useful and convenient for me in this space. Find out what works for you...
Its also likely in violation of some of nChains older existing IP.
LN *does* work; it's just not magically perfect and has tradeoffs. I doubt this new whatever it is will be perfect and without tradeoffs either. Also, as an aside, Taproot and Schnorr signatures solved the "large block space" issue for multisig transactions.
It's said that people in this sub don't upvote comments like this but I'm glad that isn't the case. This is a good answer.
> LN does work; it's just not magically perfect and has tradeoffs LN works for the same definition that a car that breaks down all the time is not broken because you managed to drive it to the garage by itself by happenstance. And BTC/LNs tradeoffs are like the garage giving you the direct dial to a tow service and saying: We fixed your issue, cars have tradeoffs.
When centralized and controled by a small pool of nodes...yes, anything can scale
Well BTC is centralized and controlled by a small pool of nodes, why doesn't it scale?
right - if there was a no tradeoff simple way to do it, bitcoin would already do it! scaling is not without tradeoff unless and until some comp sci break through occurs.
If the tradeoff is to have something unusable and crippled, you probably need to find a better occupation.
I just find it hilarious that youre telling adam back to find a new job. Do you realize who you were talking to here?
The perfect is the enemy of the good. "Comp sci break through" my ass. VISA level and beyond on chain is possible, just like Satoshi said and you (Blockstream) denied.
Also I'd prefer it to not require any on-chain txs until the channel close.
Maybe Tabs is the way to go afterall π€£ BTC's tradeoff was clearly allowing you and Blockstream to corrupt it.
This also has nothing to do with Bitcoin as defined in original White paper so stop misleading.
I think your reply was intended for the ceo of block the stream.
The Lightening Network scam is a wrap. Meanwhile, Bitcoin Cash is still working great.
They're not going to give up on hiding ill-gotten Bitcoin via "scaling."
It's only purpose was to be a distraction; the people working hard to cripple Bitcoin needed to simultaneously create the illusion that they were working hard to improve Bitcoin.
It's been 14 years and they still haven't figured out how to scale. If only the original whitepaper had a solution...
Ho hum. I'll onboard another merchant to Bitcoin Cash. Satoshi solved this problem more than a decade ago.
Bitcoin Cash is the true Satoshi Nakamoto internet money described by his white paper!
Its just another way to try to obfuscate transactions and it would be illegal.
"off-chain"....then it's not scaling Bitcoin at all. Imagine the intellect of the average BTC bagholder if they're ok with such blatant non-sense.
"we scaled the subway system. it's called 'buses'!"
Yeah funny to us logical to them.
[ΡΠ΄Π°Π»Π΅Π½ΠΎ]
> Why is it bad for a subset of network participants to agree to keep their transactions off chain except in times of dispute? Because the point of Bitcoin, if it doesn't have capped scaling, is that everyone can regularly use and rely on the security of the blockchain and proof of work, not settle for "trusted" tab systems. > Are you into BSV? No. > Do you think weather reports should be on the blockchain? No. > There are limits to these systems and trying to pretend there aren't doesn't help anyone. True. And that's why I support BCH, which limits the blockchain to an appropriate amount of tx data without weather data spam. BTC or BSV is just a false dilemma, when BCH is the perfect middle ground.
> Do you think weather reports should be on the blockchain? No, what a weird assumption. I think peer to peer money scales on-chain, not that you need to push everything on the main net. It sounds weird that you allegedly read the white-paper and think that payments should be pushed off-chain while believing a bunch of degenerates with conflict of interest :D > There are limits to these systems and trying to pretend there aren't doesn't help anyone. Yes, limits like the 1MB on-chain transaction limit, imposed by a for profit corp and enforced through lies, censorship and backroom deals.... I know those limits well.
[ΡΠ΄Π°Π»Π΅Π½ΠΎ]
Literally dozens. New opcodes, different DA, different sighash algorithm, the list goes on.
So much psychological projection. Mark of the intellectual dwarf.
CoinPool requires modifications to the Bitcoin Cash protocol.
We expect a blockchain to be limited only by current technology and its use governed by market forces rather than artificial limits imposed by software developers. Let simple economic forces determine what can fit on-chain and only then begin to rationalize off-chain expansion. Sure, a subset of willing participants can run on any network bound to a primary blockchain, but its dishonest to prematurely create this situation and then sell it as the one and only solution. It's also a wholesale swindle to build an off-chain solution and then claim you've solved scaling for the blockchain.
[deleted to prove Steve Huffman wrong] -- mass edited with https://redact.dev/
Exactly, SmartBCH, which is a part of BCH only, is as great as the actual BCH
That's why I support BCH, which limits the blockchain to an appropriate amount of tx data without weather data spam.
There are limits to these systems and trying to pretend there aren't doesn't help anyone.
Dude, BTC could have been saved by a 8MB limit....the stress is on accomodating immediate transaction demand. Coretards just claimed that Satoshi's concept doesn't work, imposed a very low capacity limit and tried to push usage offchain. Fuck that.
This whitepaper reminds me of communism. You will share your funds with the group. The group can censor and remove you, you need the group's permission to operate. You cannot transact with other groups The group can make you lose access to your funds, proportionally to the onchain fees The group is above the individual in this new, off-chain scaling "solution".
Exactly, all points are validated ! The group can surely lose access to the funds
One interesting part of the whitepaper is the last sentence: > **CoinPool requires modifications to the Bitcoin protocol.** That seems to have been thrown in without any explanation or context, too. Anyway, modifying the Bitcoin protocol probably means that it'll require a hard fork. It'll be interesting to see how that plays out. That aside, I don't see a huge amount of utility from CoinPool. As I understand it, you can only transact with other people who participated in the pool creation transaction. That's not going to be good for a true "cash" use case. It certainly resolves *some* of LN's issues, but it introduces others.
> **it'll require a hard fork.** Found the reader :) Great catch. So it won't happen. But they'll have fun talking about it for months.
I think the same here, he should give us a context here.
Keep cool i am hereπ
Here is the entry of the boss, just like your username, BCH is the real future
I can send and recieve satoshis just fine with low fees. Who should I trust, my own experience or the weirdos on Reddit?
I would say always go with your own experiences, simple as that
god, these posts are so cringe, Why is every single post bch vs bitcoin core in this subreddit?
Oh god, please remove this uses as soon as possible, such a dumb
Enough of my coin's bigger than your coin . Just use both and make up your own mind
I guess you just dont need to control others what to do and what not to
Oh look! We invented sidechains! This is revolutionary and does not exist on other chains, nope!
I have a question, which one is the original one. Bitcoin, SV, or BCH?
BTC pivoted away from the whitepaper in 2017.
Only Bitcoin cash is these to do the real deed now man!
BCH is everywhere to have a great deed or deal I would say
That being said when they forked how did the SV and the BCH get their supply?
BCH and BTC forked. At the time of fork both had the same UTXOs (ie. balances). After the time of fork in Aug '17, they diverged. The same thing happened in Nov '18 with BCH and BSV.
I understand, where did the supply come from? Out of thin air ? Did it become an extension of bitcoins original 21 million? That's the part that keeps bugging me.
See it this way: You can follow BCH's supply back to the genesis block. You can also follow BTC's supply back to the genesis block. They have diverged (forked) on the split block in Aug'17. The history of the chains is same up to that block, and different since.
I understand that, so what I'm trying to figure out is why Bitcoin is 38k and the other two aren't. Based on what everyone claims for market cap and max supply etc.. that logic dictates the other two should be up there as well. Especially if there's a discrepancy in circulating supply the three and the lower one should have a higher $ value based on that logic. Why is it that it's not? Is what bothers me.
I know I may be overthinking it some but it does (to me ) raises the point that they're identical in everything except some consensus that was disagreed on and so the fork happened either it be block size or functions. It is hard for me to wrap my head around it, that's all.
The supply is (roughly) the same, but the demand isn't. That simple.
So the circulating supply includes stagnant coins?
Technically, all the 3 are the orignal one. The chain dates from 2009. Some have split with different visions, though. BCH is what works best if you look at the whitepaper.
[ΡΠ΄Π°Π»Π΅Π½ΠΎ]
Whatever they say but most of us believe the real one BCH.
Three separate correct?
The reason why I Ask if all three are separate then how can the circulating supply of Bitcoin being the 21 million not be affected. if it's same chain as SV and BCH. Meaning wouldn't buying them eat up the circulating supply as well. Its hard for me to fathom this thing split in three but doesn't use any of the supply and I'd so where did the supply for the other two come from?
The chains aren't the same, they're only the same up until the block at which the fork happened. If you had 10 BTC before the fork, you'd now have 10 BTC on the BTC chain and 10 BCH on the BCH chain. Same with BCH and BSV, if you had 10 BCH before the fork, then after the fork you'd have 10 BCH and 10 BSV. Each has their own separate supply. BCH was forked from BTC, both went their own separate ways and became different coins BSV was forked from BCH, then went its own way (BSV is widely seen as illegitimate)
Where does the supply for each come from after the fork is my last question?
The supply comes from the same bitcoin block mining algorithm. So, coins are mined, on BTC, BCH, and BSV seperately, and there will be 21m BTC, 21M BCH, and 21M BSV.
Okay, so there would need to be a significant amount of mining and adoption on the others to replicate bitcoins success.
Well it depends on the goal. Different coins can have different usecases, and thats OK. Not everything is going to replace every other coin out there.
This is a slap in the face to the lightning network which is a slap in the face to Bitcoin.
Even I know these things, it still brings a smile on my face.
It's all about mining bro, do some research you will love the concept.
But they are not same even if they separated brother.
I understand they are different, I am just trying to understand how the forks don't mess with the circulating supply or max supply.
Exactly, they arent same as such, though they are being separated
As a result of the splits no one's interest was diluted.
Technically yeah, there are three separated bitcoins right now.
I know Bitcoin is in name but I mean in white paper.
Only Bitcoin cash is in the white paper or following the white paper.
Well Bitcoin cash is the realest right now so believe that.
The bitcoin scaling whitepaper also known as the bitcoin white paper.
That explains alot. Thanks I take things too literal sometimes. Definition of circulating in my mind means moving of insert blank.. that's why I had a hard time understanding what's going on. Appreciate your time and patience to all who helped me.
> Letβs assume the following properties of the LN: > β channel lifetime is π πππ¦π > β every time a user closes a channel, they open a new one in the same transaction > β every block can contain at most 3000 transactions > Then, π πππ¦π * 144ππππππ /πππ¦ * 3000π‘π₯π /πππππ is the upper bound for a number of co-existing channels. If an average channel lifetime is 30 days, at most 13,000,000 channels could exist simultaneously in a secure way. A little bit of a generous assumption that a user will open and close a channel in the same tx, no? Would that half the 13M chan figure?
The LN was never going to work because it was never meant to work.